three easy steps to unlocking the mysteries of classical music

But why? What's the point? If I listen to a piece of music I don't care about any of the technical aspects. I just want to know whether I like the sound. I don't believe I will find classical or modern country music for that matter will sound any less tedious if I know about meters or majors and minors. Music for me is an emotional experience not an intellectual one.

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
But why? What's the point?

first and foremost, music is a hearing experience. it's all sound. this is all stuff you can hear.

the emotional part is a reaction to what you hear.

but if you have decided that classical music is tedious, the conversation is finished.

Dear Mike,

I agree that it does nothing but good to learn a little every day about the classics!

But I can definately tell you that among the huge number of converts to the classics that I have made, the best way is to relay a great performance of something they might actually know part of - for example the Third Suite of Bach - from the unknown start, through the known part, and onto the unknown end! I don't say something like listen to this, but pretend to ignore the music, so as to leave the potential convert open to their own curiosity being arroused, somewhat like a horse being led to water. The leader must not make it obvious what the point of leading the horse to the brook was! The beautiful view up the valley, perhaps, or the pleasant green grass, or even possibly the sweet refreshing water... ah got it without a hint! Or so the unsuspecting horse so believes!!!

Curiosity will certainly produce an enquiry as to what this amazing music was! It often has cost me the disc being played, but worth it if one makes a convert to the great classics! I have never yet found a person who found the Great Air from the Third Suite to be tedious or lacking in emotional significance!

ATB from George

Yes, simply listening with the right intention should flood your soul in music, without indulging in the luxury of inspection.

for me, if i hear two meters in play, well played, it gives me a little shock, a rush of recognition, like when you see a friend unexpectedly on a long uncertain trip.

i think that feeling is a musical emotion. the composer set it just there for a reason. it is part of the communication, between him and us :-)

it seems a deeper reason, because it is so enduring. we have known the depths and heights of two-against-three for many generations. it is part of us. and when it's done right, you can feel it in your bones.

so for beethoven symphonies i have :

30s
40s
50s
60s
70s
80s
1996

it's fascinating what things change.

i think i'm going to try the abbado/berlin beethoven (2005???).

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
But why? What's the point? If I listen to a piece of music I don't care about any of the technical aspects. I just want to know whether I like the sound. I don't believe I will find classical or modern country music for that matter will sound any less tedious if I know about meters or majors and minors. Music for me is an emotional experience not an intellectual one.

What would happen if it were the case that understanding the technical aspects meant you enjoyed the music more? What then? It's sad that you don't appear to want to even contemplate the idea that you might gain from changing your approach, if only you could let go of a particular assumption (which I doubt you've tested). People often don't approach something because they think it will be difficult, they'll fail and then they'll feel bad. But anything is only difficult because we make it so. Personally I think you'd find understanding harmony more interesting than counting beats, but each to their own...

From my experience the best way to start to enjoy classical music is to see it performed live.

As someone who had seen many rock concerts before seeing my first classical performance, I was struck by several things.

Live most rock music, mainly due to the amplification and volume, gives an emotional impression of the music, but not the detail. Also with much rock music in the studio involving overdubs the live performance is a simplified, and again more emotional experience.

With classical music you hear the full arrangement, you see all the musicians performing, and there are no distractions, so you focus very deeply on the music itself.

There is also the pleasure of seeing a concert in a civilised manner, shown to your seat by ushers who are polite and there to make to your experience more enjoyable, surrounded by attentive and civilised fans. Not searched like a criminal, herded by foul mouthed security guards, and pushed about by drunken idiot fans (dance/techno and prog concerts are exempted from this description).

Rather than learning about the elements that form classical music I would suggest, feeling it, seeing it and experiencing the emotion in the focused situation of a concert is the way to unlock the enjoyment of classical music.

Mike,
I think my issue with classical (and I love a lot of the modern classical - just find Mozart, Brahms etc extremely overrated imo) is that it needs justifying or explaining. Bob Dylan needs no explanation, unless intentionally seeking to be obscure.

Classical music is a relatively modern form (compared to the ancient roots of folk, blues etc) in itself tho, I do always think it lacks the connection of other forms. A singer songwriter pouring out their heart, will always capture my attention and emotion than some performer playing the music of somebody else...to a tight formula.

My mother in law plays for a professional orchestra and has taught classical all her life. She is superb at playing music to sheet, but if you sit her down and ask her to relax and just play whatever she want's over a given key...she can't do it, she's too schooled in rigidity and discipline to let her emotions out. I actually find it quite sad to watch.

I take very little in life seriously, music (as much as I love it) not at all. Music for me is simple about emotion, communication and fun. Charley Patton didn't need musical theory to express his genius, and I don't need it to appreciate it...end of story for me.

I listen, but I expect to me moved, if I'm not, I move on regardless of genre or whether or not the composer or artist is considered a genius.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Mike,
I think my issue with classical (and I love a lot of the modern classical - just find Mozart, Brahms etc extremely overrated imo) is that it needs justifying or explaining.

mat, i think the issue with books is the words. you have to learn the vocabulary to understand and enjoy a thomas hardy novel. in picture books, you can be moved by what you see.

i have 2 friends who write for a living. sometimes, i ask them to relax and draw something. it's so sad. they are so disciplined to form words into paragraphs and chapters, and to form plots and characters, that they can't enjoy the simple vital emotional satisfaction that comes of drawing simple pictures.

oh well, to each his own :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:
I think you'd find understanding harmony more interesting than counting beats, but each to their own...

if you can count beats and you can hear major/minor, you stand at the doorstep of being able to follow melody and hear chord progressions.

i hope that's how it would work, that hearing the meter and the key would draw you in and lead you to follow melody and harmony. you have to start somewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
Rather than learning about the elements that form classical music I would suggest, feeling it, seeing it and experiencing the emotion in the focused situation of a concert is the way to unlock the enjoyment of classical music.

yes, going to concerts is the best :-) but in terms of the level of effort involved, going to a web site, then playing your stereo, in the comform of your home, is a minimal effort (that's what i was going for - minimal effort).

of course, i am hoping that success with minimal effort would cultivate an appetite for more, and that would resolve itself at some point by getting dressed, driving into town, and catching a concert ...

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
i have 2 friends who write for a living. sometimes, i ask them to relax and draw something. it's so sad. they are so disciplined to form words into paragraphs and chapters, and to form plots and characters, that they can't enjoy the simple vital emotional satisfaction that comes of drawing simple pictures.

Excellent reply Mike, and great analogy. I wonder if that lies at the root of it for me. I read Proust years ago, and didn't really rate it too highly when I'd finally finished. When I did some research on the context etc of his work, I did revise my opinion...but it took that. Hardy on the other hand, blew me away as I was reading it, I therefore hold his work in higher esteem (as art, a medium of communication).

I wonder if most if not all other genres of music are rooted in folk (of whatever culture - african, saxon, hispanic etc) and so have common structures. Classical is a more modern construct (as I understand it, maybe apart from Bartok etc who drew on folk) and needs consideration in a different way? Don't know, just a thought.

I'm a genre hopper Mike, I love any art that changes the way I feel and I can connect with (probably why I'm on this forum and not on an Audio Research forum)...so I'm not anti-classical at all Mike. Brahms violin concerto and Christian Ferras amazes me, as does Kapsbereger's compositions etc in this respect Mike, but then so does The Clash, Nick Drake, Charlie Mingus and The The.

All said with a smile, in the interests of debate, thanks for giving me much to think on Mike.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Classical is a more modern construct

mat, here's a crazy thought. when i hear a tune move from major to minor, the lights dim in the room, and i feel a cold and remorseless breath rasp across the back of my neck, raising the hairs. eyes wide, i look back over my shoulder. What will happen next?

beethoven knows this about me, so the wicked conjurer drags and pushes my quivering soul through emotions so strange and unfamiliar ...

well, you get the idea.

a good two against three makes me feel like i have a split personality.

for me, thomas hardy and beethoven are kindred spirits :-)

BTW, my favorite Hardy short story is "A Tryst at the ancient earth works".

talk again soon ...

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
But why? What's the point? If I listen to a piece of music I don't care about any of the technical aspects ... Music for me is an emotional experience not an intellectual one.

What would happen if it were the case that understanding the technical aspects meant you enjoyed the music more?

I agree, Jeremy.

There's a great quote from the physicist Richard Feynman which address this very issue.

I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty.

First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people--and to me, too, I believe. Although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. But at the same time, I see much more in the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells inside, which also have a beauty. There's beauty not just at the dimension of one centimeter; there's also beauty at a smaller dimension.

There are the complicated actions of the cells, and other processes. The fact that the colors in the flower have evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; that means insects can see the colors. That adds a question: does this aesthetic sense we have also exist in lower forms of life? There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

I'd echo Feynman to say that, yes, emotional connection is essential to music, but examining the nuts and bolts of music has never detracted from the emotional connection, it's only added.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

My mother in law plays for a professional orchestra and has taught classical all her life. She is superb at playing music to sheet, but if you sit her down and ask her to relax and just play whatever she want's over a given key...she can't do it, she's too schooled in rigidity and discipline to let her emotions out. I actually find it quite sad to watch.

But this is not a direct result of inherent limitations in classical music itself, but rather the limitations resulting from her specific musical education and individual temperament. It's very common these days for classical musicians to be able to improvise well, and for improvising musicians to be able to perform written music well.

Despite its widespread cultural associations as such, there's nothing inherently rigid in classical music, nor is jazz, for instance, inherently nonrigid. Further, to play written classical music really well requires a significant degree of freedom in its interpretation, and to play jazz really well takes no less discipline.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
Rather than learning about the elements that form classical music I would suggest, feeling it, seeing it and experiencing the emotion in the focused situation of a concert is the way to unlock the enjoyment of classical music.

yes, going to concerts is the best :-) but in terms of the level of effort involved, going to a web site, then playing your stereo, in the comfort of your home, is a minimal effort (that's what i was going for - minimal effort).

of course, i am hoping that success with minimal effort would cultivate an appetite for more, and that would resolve itself at some point by getting dressed, driving into town, and catching a concert ...

I guess it depends on who you are trying to convince. I have always found that the reward gained is proportional to the effort put into achieving it. This does not mean that I am one of those interested in walking to the poles on foot, but it does mean that the some (much) of the music I most enjoy is music that offered some appeal, but was masked by something that made it inaccessible.

Not an example from classical music, but I think this would explain the fervour of fans of Miles Davis' album 'Bitches Brew'. My personal equivalents would be Van Der Graaf Generator 'Pawn Harts' and Tool 'Lateralus', both of which I considered unlistenable for a long time.

I think that many people not interested in classical music (or any other type of music for that matter), are more interested in what offers the easiest reward, or most relevant reward to their starting point in musical taste. I do not think that offering forumlae for what they are missing will make any great difference.

This does not mean that all music is likeable with a given effort (it might be), but the rewards are a balance between what is easily acceptable, and what is worth striving for within your social group/artistic aims.

I am also not saying that those who dislike classical music are lazy, and in this forum, I would suggest that I have seen very little evidence of any music laziness. On the contrary, there are those who are fervent supporters of music that I find unpleasant, and I similarly love music they would find unpleasant, but we have strived in different directions from different starting places.

It is easier to look into the next field rather than at a distant horizon, but as you progress through different fields, you find a path to a distant and personal horizon. It is also very dependent on what field you start in, and which direction your initial move takes you.

If I were to encourage someone to like classical music, I would play them pieces that I think would have some common starting point to their taste, but I would certainly take them to a concert, as that immerses them in the experience, and also makes them come to terms with the being in that experience for a period of time.

Put simply, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
Despite its widespread cultural associations as such, there's nothing inherently rigid in classical music, nor is jazz, for instance, inherently nonrigid. Further, to play written classical music really well requires a significant degree of freedom in its interpretation, and to play jazz really well takes no less discipline.

i go out and hear rhythm & blues and jazz more often than classical music, because it's available, and a lot of new orleans musicians are trying to break new ground, and that's done in the clubs.

here's my rule of thumb :

if i walk in and they are in tune and on time, if they are in the groove is what that means, i stay. if they are in tune and on time, anything can happen. if they aren't, well, that's like reading poetry with a lisp :-)

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
I have always found that the reward gained is proportional to the effort put into achieving it.

I can see that Jamie (Trout Mask Replica is a great favourite of mine), and it's a maxim I'll no doubt tell my kids...but I don't really believe it.

There's something about visceral immediate pleasures that are so intense - punk of the 70's perfectly captures this for me, as does looking at stunningly beautiful women...it may sound shallow, but both examples are immediately gratifying. I guess I want a little more to it as well (a message in music, a brain and opinion in a wife) long term, but it's a parallel process for me, both modes equally satisfying.

I really can't agree with the premise above that classical musicians are as 'free' as jazz musicians are as 'structured'. I love both, but one is about conveying somebody elses tunes, the other about freeform expression.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
There's something about visceral immediate pleasures that are so intense - looking at stunningly beautiful women...it may sound shallow, I really can't agree with the premise above that classical musicians are as 'free' as jazz musicians are as 'structured'. I love both, but one is about conveying somebody elses tunes, the other about freeform expression.

when looking at beautiful women becomes shallow, i am going to dig a hole, jump in, then pull the mud over me. where do you think babies come from?

and mat, you really don't have enough chips in the game to have an opinion about what classical musicians do or don't do.

think of it this way : if classical music were a beautiful woman and you approached her with the attitude you have, you'd be going to bed alone every night.

if you ever develop a desire, an appetite to consume classical music, then you might find you have empathy for it. without that empathy, you are on the outside looking in, and don't stand a bat's chance in hell of reaping the enjoyment that's waiting to be had.

that's your choice, you butter your bread and you sleeps in it.

you think i'm having any fun, feeling any joy?

take a sip for yourself.

one last blast :

it's not about conveying emotion scribbled on paper by someone else. it's about establishing a communion of composer, performer and audience and breathing new life into it. new life - each time it is different.

you start talking to beautiful women that way (even your wife if you have one) and your luck will improve!

and you should know this : ALL good jazz musicians spend hundreds or thousands of hours memorizing licks by greats from the past. ONLY THEN is the possibility of an original musical thought apparent.

this music shit is not as easy as it looks ...

and that whistle in your ear, it's keeping you from hearing classical music - get it looked into.

We'll have to disagree on that one Mike...you folk can't have your cake and eat it.

I don't doubt there are area's where classical would demonstrate greater degree's of a given trait, but you can't have them all. I accept that classical musicians do have some degree of flexibility, but to suggest it's equivalent to free form expression really can't be right. I've eaten all the chips Mike.

I have said, I do love a lot of classical music (as I do virtually every genre) but I'll never be a genre-fan. They all have their respective strengths...classical will never change the world like rock did, but rock will never be able to provide a soundtrack, so fitting, to something like the holocaust etc.

The ears are beyond medical help Mike, but if I had my time again, I'd still abuse them to provide the memories I have.

I know this may be controversial, but to me, not all classical music sounds the same. There is a great deal of difference between Tallis and Stravinsky or am I missing something. Not quite sure why music gets catalogued in the way it does.

I'd agree with you ROTF, Vivaldi to me is akin to disposable pop (within the rock genre). Beethoven and Stravinsky richer, more rewarding and involving, and most importantly, they knocked out better tunes.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
But why? What's the point? If I listen to a piece of music I don't care about any of the technical aspects. I just want to know whether I like the sound. I don't believe I will find classical or modern country music for that matter will sound any less tedious if I know about meters or majors and minors. Music for me is an emotional experience not an intellectual one.

What would happen if it were the case that understanding the technical aspects meant you enjoyed the music more? What then? It's sad that you don't appear to want to even contemplate the idea that you might gain from changing your approach, if only you could let go of a particular assumption (which I doubt you've tested). People often don't approach something because they think it will be difficult, they'll fail and then they'll feel bad. But anything is only difficult because we make it so. Personally I think you'd find understanding harmony more interesting than counting beats, but each to their own...

Well I did at one point. I remember spending interminable hours at school in music lessons being taught to understand harmony, counterpoint, metre, etc. We were forced to listen to huge amounts of classical music. I don't think it put me off - I disliked classical as much before as I did afterwards. It was just a waste of time. I have since tried very hard to like different types of classical music but I just can't, although I do have a softy spot for Thomas Tallis and Aaron Copeland. But gerenerally speaking classical is not within me. It's like trying to be gay if you're straight or vica-versa. If you're not inclined that way nothing you can do can force you to change they way you are.
All those technical things as well, all of which I have now forgotten made no difference either.
Oh and another thing. Why would I want to waste my time counting beats?

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
But generally speaking classical is not within me. It's like trying to be gay if you're straight or vica-versa. If you're not inclined that way nothing you can do can force you to change they way you are.
All those technical things as well, all of which I have now forgotten made no difference either.
Oh and another thing. Why would I want to waste my time counting beats?

if you have a budding interest in classical music and want to increase your enjoyment, then learning to count beats is a good thing to do, as it will advance your powers of perception.

if you had a lot of formal training in music, and just flat don't like classical music, then counting beats is a stupid idea, but so is questioning other people who love classical music about anything they might to to improve their powers of perception.

why did you even bother to post to this thread? given your attitude and convictions, what possible enjoyment will your posts bring to yourself or anyone else?

just curious.

Mike, what 5 discs would you recommend to somebody seeking to to understand classical music and why?

Hardy BTW...Mayor of Cbridge for me every time.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Mike, what 5 discs would you recommend to somebody seeking to to understand classical music and why?

Hardy BTW...Mayor of Cbridge for me every time.

that's a hard one mat.

what you like when you're already committed and what you like when you start are two different animals.

and you're right, The Mayor of Casterbridge
(sp ?) is perfect and awesome.

1 - bach goldberg variations - the sense of musical order and the level of invention. i would put it on and do something else the first 3-4 times i listened. this is a gentle, beautiful introduction to hearing the clockwork that all music is built upon, both harmonically and melodically.

2 - mozart's magic flute, for the sheer beauty of the melodies, which is primary among all of mozart's gifts.

3- beethoven symphony no. 3 "eroica". joy in music undiluted by any other consideration. and scope that takes everything in life and ferments undiluted hope for the future and the
present.

4 - mendelsohnn "A midsummer night's dream", because here is where the fairies live :-)
if you loved peter pan as a child, this will peel away the years when you're 80.

5 - stravinsky "pulcinella" (complete) with the singing, because it places beauty above every other consideration, and it demonstrates a freshness rare in 20th century music.

everything here is hopeful and full of glee,
which is not the norm for classical music, especially of the 20th century. but it fits my mood today, because i am awash in beethoven's piano sonatas, and that's how they always make me feel.

ask again on a day when i'm in a sour mood, and i'll give you a list that will turn your hair white, overnight!